Re: [tied] Why are Horses Vedic Again?

From: S.Kalyanaraman
Message: 18463
Date: 2003-02-06

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > --- Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
> wrote:> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <x99lynx@...>> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] Why are Horses Vedic Again?
> > > > > > > The benefits of this kind of contact to early IIr
> > speakers to the north and northwest of the Indus and
> > Sarasvati valleys should be obvious, considering the
> > wealth and technological prowess of Harappan culture
> > ...> > > > Errr... Steve, are you into this "Indus _and
> > Sarasvati_" terminology?> > ;-)> >
> > Piotr>
> *****GK: My recent rereading of the RigVeda has
> convinced me that Indus and Sarasvati refer to the
> same river. I see no reason to identify it with the
> (nameless) "dried up" fluvium of Harappan times.*****

Reference to Piotr's question: "Errr...Steve, are you into
this "Indus_and Sarasvati_ terminology?" I may add that out of 2,600
archaeological sites unearthed so far, over 2,000 are found on the
banks of River Sarasvati and 600 on the banks of River Sindhu
(Indus). What is wrong with Indus and Sarasvati terminology even in
a linguistic setting when we are talking of languages such as Nahali
on the River Tapi (not far from Gulf of Khambat with Lothal, Padri
and scores of civilization sites) on the coastline of Sindhu Sa_gara
(Arabian Sea)? We are dealing with a maritime-riverine civilization -
- aka Indic (in linguistic terminology). In Rigveda, sindhu refers
to a river or ocean; Sarasvati is saptati_, sindhuma_ta_, mother of
seven rivers. Call it mythical, metaphorical; the terminology
clearly refers to rivers or ocean.

In all the discussions on IE and PIE linguistics I find little
attention being paid to the Gulf (Meluhha, Magan, Dilmun) which was
a highway which linked the civilization to Mesopotamia (land of two
rivers).